HOF?

[Ludens]

Ahhh! I finally understand that first phrase: 'were' misses an 'h' I thought "What the hell....?" when I read it.

I guess that'll teach me not to rely on the spell checker .

What we have now, what it looks like, is something somewhere vaguely in the middle: a bad system that "tries". This public recognition you spoke of that is achieved through flawedness: is that even worth it?

If you ask me: no. I say we either do or we don't: no trying to start with. If we do and fail, then afterwards we don't and can then justifiably say we tried.

Since we do try I rather fail to see the problem. Off course, if you've got any suggestions to improve the objectivity of the system, I would like to hear them.

[Bijo]

Well, I more or less provided suggestions already in one of those previous posts with simple math. We -- or whoever is to fairly, etc., do so -- check the amount of positive and negative contributions of members and make a simple calculation. Their contents must also be considered and given a value to be included in the calculation.

The following is just some quick brainstorming on-the-fly. Potential content parameters to check could be:
- honesty
- helpfulness
- truth
- level of sophistication
- humour
- level of effort
- efficiency
- attitude
- clarity
- quality
- etc.
- etc.

Of course, since there would probably be different kinds of HoF awards that seem to be different every year, the parameters to be checked should be tweaked and organized accordingly.

Who is to be appointed for this task... I don't know. Perhaps a team of people -- those who are fit for it and available -- should check and keep tabs on members' activities so around the end of the year they have calculations ready to show.

[CountArach]

Are you volunteering to go through the tens of thousands of posts in the last year?

[Motep]

Well, I more or less provided suggestions already in one of those previous posts with simple math. We -- or whoever is to fairly, etc., do so -- check the amount of positive and negative contributions of members and make a simple calculation. Their contents must also be considered and given a value to be included in the calculation.

The following is just some quick brainstorming on-the-fly. Potential content parameters to check could be:
- honesty
- helpfulness
- truth
- level of sophistication
- humour
- level of effort
- efficiency
- attitude
- clarity
- quality
- etc.
- etc.

Of course, since there would probably be different kinds of HoF awards that seem to be different every year, the parameters to be checked should be tweaked and organized accordingly.

Who is to be appointed for this task... I don't know. Perhaps a team of people -- those who are fit for it and available -- should check and keep tabs on members' activities so around the end of the year they have calculations ready to show.

That would be a real pain in the ass to kepp track of all the active members. I dont think that the staff can or would want to handle it with their current numbers.

[Ser Clegane]

That would be a real pain in the ass to kepp track of all the active members. I dont think that the staff can or would want to handle it with their current numbers.

Indeed - add to that the fact that such an approach would naturally be no less subjective than the nomination/voting process that we used in the past years as all the criteria listed are not measurable but are subject to an individual's perception.

Therefore judgment by the community as a whole are likely to yield more meaningful results - even if they are not completely objective.

We already have a vehicle for staff to recognize the achievements of org-members: promotion to "senior member" - which is e.g. based on the subjective assessment (and it would be presumptuous, IMHO, to claim that an objective assessment is even possible) along criteria as listed by Bijo

The HOF awards are an additional way to celebrate members who contributed to the community - this time based on the (subjective) opinions of the org members as a whole.

[Gregoshi]

It's kind of fun exercise to consider nominations and then finally voting. It is often a very difficult decision (at least for me) to vote for just one person in a category. The one year we skipped it, the HOF was really missed. Thus it returned due to popular demand.

[Bijo]

Indeed - add to that the fact that such an approach would naturally be no less subjective than the nomination/voting process that we used in the past years as all the criteria listed are not measurable but are subject to an individual's perception.

It might be true that it would take effort, but are you not already doing so more or less? You visit the forum and notice members and their posts, especially moderators and assistant moderators go through posts to make sure things are okay. What this solution would add is merely the exclusion of subjectivity and the inclusion of objectivity. It is not so difficult to ascertain what is right and what is wrong, what is 1 and what is 0, what is good and what is bad, what is on and what is off. A simple example would be a member who posts something offensive like "I hate you, you goddamn son of a *****!" It is easy to decide that that has a negative value. I don't really see the problem if it's about subjectivity and objectivity: it's a matter of knowing the difference between what is positive and what is negative and to act accordingly.

What this solution means is to just go on about business as usual, but pay more attention, be more objective, and maintain the data which can probably be done in simple efficient ways.

[Caius]

We can't discuss with you Bijo because you are Stoic and we are not. We think this HOF should be subjective because its our way to see who is helpful and who is not. You won't give the ok to this statement, but its the way its done. End of the question.

Over.

[KukriKhan]

...and maintain the data which can probably be done in simple efficient ways.

I'm not certain if that's possible with our software. If I understand Bijo's proposal correctly, he suggests a rating system for individual posts (I guess a 5 point scale:
-2 Very Unhelpful
-1 Unhelpful
0 Neutral
+1 Helpful
+2 Very Helpful)

I presume he'd allow all members to rate posts all the time, and that a running talley (the data he refers to) be kept, eliminating a yearly event with voting, like the Hall of Fame, which he eschews, apparently, as a mere popularity contest.

[Devastatin Dave]

I nominate my dong...

[Mikeus Caesar]

I nominate my dong...

We would all like to nominate our dong's, but bias by Tosa Inu's huge dollar always stops our dong's being noticeable.

[AntiochusIII]

We would all like to nominate our dong's, but bias by Tosa Inu's huge dollar always stops our dong's being noticeable.

The Dutch don't do dongs and dollars.

Bijo: It's just a fun popularity contest. No need to get serious over it.